Pharaoh's chariots found in the Red Sea? ( Holy Moses! )

World Net Daily ^ | June 21, 2003 | Joe Kovacs

[Doctor Stochastic]

"I am 99.9 percent sure I picked up a chariot wheel," Peter Elmer tells WorldNetDaily ...

"Without question, it is most definitely the remains of the Egyptian army."

How does the second follow from the first?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Curiously, no one can account for the precise whereabouts of that eight-spoked wheel today,...

Perhaps Van Adder forgot to put it in the evidence room.

[Skywalk]

I think it's possible(and perhaps more likely) that a small community of Hebrews lived in Egypt and eventually became oppressed and left/kicked out. However, there certainly wasn't 2 million of them(for an army of 600,000 this is what they'd need in total population.) That's disprovable right there, no army in that era was that big, not even those of the huge empires, let alone a group of slaves.

ANyways, as myths tend to do, the story of Exodus arose from a much simpler and less fantastic reality. But as for the entire nation of Hebrews being under the thumb of the Pharaoh, no, there's no evidence for it.

[Skywalk]

LOL

You show a stunning lack of knowledge about evolution, it is no wonder you discount it in favor of the mythologies of primitive savages.

Hey, any luck finding the wax-wings of Icarus, or Odin's eye?

[Skywalk]

LOL

You show a stunning lack of knowledge about evolution, it is no wonder you discount it in favor of the mythologies of primitive savages.

Hey, any luck finding the wax-wings of Icarus, or Odin's eye?

[RightOnline]

"Slight problem; there's no "fossilized boat" on Mt. Ararat."

Have you seen the documentary called "In Search of Noah's Ark"? I found it quite compelling, even including numerous eyewitnesses including (now) very old 'locals' who had climbed Ararat as kids and had even entered a very large wooden boat (with fathers, grandfathers, etc.). Anyway, I've always been convinced that the Ark is on Ararat and just curious why you don't believe it is.

[Skywalk]

Except the entire story of Noah requires one to believe that a powerful God, capable of destroying worlds and creating them, would need to ask a human to build a boat to carry animals from all over the world, including those cut off in Australia, and brave flood waters and storms rather than simply wipe out the existence of all men but those he had chosen.

It reveals the primitive's mind when it comes to the possibilities of existence. It also requires one to believe that God would destroy all animals(just because you take enough on a boat doesn't mean billions don't die) just to get at humans when all he had to do was create a virus to kill man or teleport them into the sun. Since viruses were unknown to ancient man, I guess that would be out of the question.

[mdmathis6]

"And I suggest you look up the definition of "theory" and "hypothesis" as used in science.


"The general public commonly thinks of theories the way scientists think of hypotheses."

Both have essentially the same sense meanings, it just that if one is a secular elitist it becomes a "Hypothesis"(to be pronounced with the proper air/nose mixture with the nares angled approximately 15 degrees upward so that one can look down on the generally unwashed trailer park religious fanatics who might really believe in a God).
To the rest of us "hold muh beer" bums, its all "theory" and essentially unproven!
And to think I used to look down my-self at the "King of the Hill", types....

[dark_lord]

You evo's show incredible faith. I'm envious.

How nice for you. And my post that causes you to term me an "evo" is? I doubt it was this statement of mine: and I would love to see a succinct, paragraph or less in length, disprovable theory specification for evolution. So..please enlighten me with my post...I'll wait.

[Skywalk]

Actually, no they don't have the same meanings.

No one is looking down at the "unwashed masses" or "king of the hill types." But to assert that in science hypothesis and theory have essentially the same meaning is ridiculous.

[blam]

"Does this jibe with where the "Gold of Exodus" book described the crossing, I wonder?"

I believe the crossing and the mountain described here are the same as described in The Gold Of Exodus

[whereasandsoforth]

You show a stunning lack of dexterity with your double posting. Maybe a Castor/Pollux reflex?

[rmmcdaniell]

The trouble with your "theory" - you DEMAND that others believe the same as you.

Are you refering to evolution? I don't recall anyone having been killed for refusing to believe in evolution. In contrast there have been countless slaughtered througout for refusing to submit to the orthodoxy of the numerous christian denominations. Even today if you disagree with an evolutionist you might get snickered at. However if you disagree with a christian you'll be condemened to enternity of torture in the afterlife. Whose is trying to demand that others believe as you?

[dark_lord]

Have you seen the documentary called "In Search of Noah's Ark"? I found it quite compelling, even including numerous eyewitnesses including (now) very old 'locals' who had climbed Ararat as kids and had even entered a very large wooden boat (with fathers, grandfathers, etc.). Anyway, I've always been convinced that the Ark is on Ararat and just curious why you don't believe it is.

Perhaps the following will enlighten you. From a book called "Before the Flood - The Biblical Flood as a Real Event and How it Changed the Course of Civilization" by Ian Wilson, 2001; which documents that yep, there really was a flood, and yep, there really was a civilization that got trashed, and yep, it really did happen in that area. So, yes, there is real scientific evidence for a major (and I mean HUGE) flood that happened within the general timeframe in question. However, as to why the Ark is not on Ararat there are a number of reasons. I will, however, just quote to you some of the problems.

Ian Plimer, Professor of Geology at Australia's Melborne University...took the trouble to visit the Akyayla site with Fasold in 1994. Like Fenner before him, Plimer found it impossible to repeat any of the various radar, seismic, magnetic, and electromagnetic tests claimed by Wyatt. During this expedition, apparently Fasold himself came to recognise that what Wyatt had argued to be 'boat ribs' wer no longer evident, concluding that these must have been deliberately scraped into the soil to appear as they did in Wyatt's photographs. According to Plimer's professional judgement the Akyayla boat is simply an outcrop of 120 million year old sea floor rocks (ophiolite), around which a more modern (and still moving) mud slide has flowed...In the light of Plimer's findings Fasold, having come to realise that Wyatt and Roberts had behaved deceptively, completely changed his allegiance. In partnership with Plimer he successfully sued Roberts in the Australian Federal Court. And as further related investigations revealed the self-styled 'biblical archaeologist' Ron Wyatt, who died recently, was in fact a Seventh Day Adventist nurse anaesthetist based in Nashville, Tennessee. As for the Florida 'university' quoted as the alma mater for 'Dr' Allen Roberts, this turned out to be a letterbox outside a fundamentalist church from which fake 'doctorates' can be obtained for just a few dollars.

Background on Wyatt and Roberts. Wyatt published "Discovered: Noah's Ark" in 1989, and Fasold published "The Ark of Noah" that same year. Roberts, along with Wyatt, founded an organization called "Ark Search" and they began publicizing that they had found the Ark. They produced a number of videos under the label "Amazing Truth Publications". In the end, they played fast and loose with the truth while making a bunch of money and getting a lot of publicity for themselves.

So, the reason why a lot of people are sceptical is that there have been a number of scam artists in the field happy to sell fundamentalist Christians what those same Christians wanted to hear -- and made a pile of money doing it, too. I suspect that some even on this board will not even read this far through this post and immediately post a bunch of ignorant responses about me and this information. Too bad. There is real scientific evidence for a serious and major flood in that region within roughly the time frame identified by the Bible. And if one considers that the Ark did not have to hold representatives of every animal in the world, but just the ones in that geographical region; and that a massive flood in that region would have wiped out a major component of the human race living at the time; from that perspective the Bible can be considered to be verified.

As for why it happened...as CS Lewis said about prayer (I paraphrase): "If you pray for something and you get no result, it shows prayer doesn't work. And if you pray for something and you do get result, why you can see the chain of cause and effect and you would have got the result anyway, right"? Heh heh. From my limited theological perspective, it is clear to me that God was protecting the human lineage that was going to lead to Christ. He took advantage of the climate and the geographical features to generate the major flood "burst through" and man, did it ever. And he wasn't shy of "trimming off" tribes and groups that could have otherwise threatened that lineage. After all, if He has "foreknowledge" he is going to see those threats coming. The flood (and other actions that people from a human perspective would consider brutal) make sense if he is protecting the bloodline that leads to Christ. And of course, again, this is IMO.

Anyone who wants a scientific historical perspective on the flood, I do recommend the above book. It is pretty well researched (has almost 50 pages of notes and references at the end.)

[blam]

"Just for fun."

This is my prefered location for the crosssing and the mountain. But, I prefer the date of 1628BC to concide with the explosion of Santorini/Thera.

Most of the Jews who left Egypt died enroute. If Santorini was involved, there's no reason to expect that most of the Egyptians didn't die either consequently, a lack of Egyptian records?

[blam]

"There is real scientific evidence for a serious and major flood in that region within roughly the time frame identified by the Bible.

What time 'frame' is that. I've been searching for a date.

[DAnconia55]

Gulf of Aqaba

Ah. Just where the theory of Atlantis (Thera) destruction posits the Red Sea crossing would have been.

Fascinating.

[Sam Cree]

Thanks.

[DAnconia55]

Oops. Sorry. I think I meant to ping blam. Sigh. Need rest.

Point being the Santorini explosion that ended what could have been the high civilization of Atlantis, referred to by Plato (referencing Solon's conversation with the Eqyptians)... would have created the pulling out of waters from the Gulf described in the Bible.

Nice to see they found some evidence. The idea that the chariots crossed the Red Sea proper wasn't something I'd ever have gone along with. The Gulf is shallow and at the Mediterranean end of the Red Sea.

[Radix]

the reality of evolution

I am simply unwilling to state my position on the Theory of Evolution. I just saw a thread the other day which brought out many opinions of several FReepers. It has pretty much all been said, but I do not recall anyone commenting in the fashion that you have here. The "reality of evolution" is a pretty bold remark. Can you demonstrate some examples of the reality of Evolution?